Matta v. Matta

Citations: 44 Mass. App. Ct. 946; 693 N.E.2d 1063; 1998 Mass. App. LEXIS 459Docket: No. 97-P-0007

Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court; May 15, 1998; Massachusetts; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The husband appeals a Probate Court judgment granting a divorce, child support, alimony, property division, and joint legal custody of their minor child, with physical custody awarded to the wife. The court's findings, unchallenged on appeal, reveal that the couple married in Lebanon in 1969, moved to Brockton in 1984, and own a three-family home valued at $110,000, mortgaged at $90,000. The wife, who suffers from multiple sclerosis and has been wheelchair-bound since 1991, was the primary financial provider until her condition worsened, leading to her total disability. The husband, a self-employed auto mechanic, has had inconsistent income. In September 1993, he left the marital home, prompting the wife to seek a restraining order, which lasted about a year. A temporary support order was issued in October 1993, but the husband later successfully moved to cease payments in April 1994. The wife found it increasingly difficult to care for their son, Clyde, resulting in her moving to a smaller apartment in May 1994. By July 1994, the husband returned to the marital home, where he and Clyde lived during the trial.

The Probate Court's November 1995 judgment awarded physical custody of Clyde to the wife and required the husband to convey his interest in the marital home to her, with her providing him a ten-year $10,000 note at 5% interest. The husband's main argument on appeal is that the judge's decision regarding physical custody lacks support, given the wife's admission of being unable to care for Clyde due to her condition. However, the court emphasized that custody decisions are made in the child's best interests, with broad discretion given to the judge. The court found no clear error in the judge's decision, noting that while the wife's condition is severe, she did not concede total incapacity to care for Clyde. Instead, she indicated that her living situation contributed to her inability to care for him, expressed a desire to return to the marital home, and asserted that, with assistance, she could better care for Clyde and wished for more contact with him.

The court-appointed investigator's report recommends that physical custody remain with the husband but includes observations supporting the judge's decision. Notably, Clyde's school counselor reported negative changes in his demeanor after living with the husband, who is described as "depressed, angry, and in denial" regarding his wife's condition. In contrast, the wife is portrayed as selflessly concerned for Clyde, wishing to spend more time with him in preparation for her eventual passing. The judge concluded that shared legal custody with physical custody to the wife and visitation rights for the father serves Clyde's best interests.

The husband argues that the judge erred in requiring him to convey his interest in the marital home to the wife, but he does not contest the $75 weekly child support or the same amount in alimony post-emancipation. Under General Laws c. 208, § 34, probate judges have broad discretion in property division during divorce. As long as the judge's findings are consistent with statutory obligations and consider all relevant factors, decisions on property division can only be reversed if found to be "plainly wrong and excessive."

The judge's findings considered the parties' ages, health, financial contributions, and needs, noting the wife's prior greater financial contribution and shared responsibilities until her illness. The decision for the husband to transfer his interest in the marital home was logically supported by findings that the wife, with a full-time personal care assistant, could care for Clyde in the marital home, which they needed for security. The husband was also awarded $10,000 for his contributions to the home and allowed to retain his business assets. The court affirmed the judgment, finding the property division reasonable.